FlyTheNest

Forum rules

Welcome to FTN. New posters are welcome to join the conversation. You can follow us on Twitter @FlythenestHaven You are responsible for the content you post. This is a public forum. Treat it as if you are speaking in a crowded room. Site admin and Moderators are volunteers who will respond as quickly as they are able to when made aware of any complaints. Please do not post copyrighted material without the original authors permission.

Grieve said that, when he used the phrase “we could collapse the government” in an interview at the weekend, he was talking about what might happen if the final Brexit withdrawal agreement were rejected. He said the whole point of his “meaningful vote” amendment was to stop that happening.

If rejecting the withdrawal agreement were to cause a constitutional crisis, this makes it very hard for MPs to say no, however bad the withdrawal agreement is. Only a mechanism within the withdrawal bill that avoids such a crisis can make any vote 'meaningful' in the sense that saying no is a realistic option that won't plunge the country into turmoil. This is what Keir Starmer means by a 'meaningful vote' and Grieve seems to agree with him and is doing his best to get one. This is a good thing and a defeat for the wilder element of the Eurosceptic right as it will make it harder for May to push through a withdrawal agreement that doesn't meet the approval of the majority of the Commons.

Barnier making it clear this morning that leave means leave -some twitter quotes pinched from the daily pol in the graun.

Quote:

.@MichelBarnier “The #UK has decided to leave the EU...It will be a third country outside Schengen and outside the EU’s legal order. This is a fact. Facts have consequences.”

Quietly, Michel Barnier is shooting down virtually every UK demand on crime co-operation post-Brexit. He's just said that because of UK red line on ECJ he sees it as impossible that we can remain part of the European Arrest Warrant.

This language may not go down well. @MichelBarnier says will need "a common commitment to human rights & confidence that the other party will respect them." A little extraordinary.Let's be clear: we're talking about the UK here. Confirms EU demands UK commit to stay inside ECHR.

Thinking about who is pushing Brexit I'm reminded of Baldwin's "A lot of hard-faced men who look as if they had done very well out of the war" about the new MPs in 1918.

Sometimes he talks good sense and others he's off-the-wall bonkers, probably down to how much ale he's taken.So-called 'sensible' Leavers are just as culpable for getting us into this mess as the ERG nutters imo.If they're so clever how come they didn't foresee their beloved project being highjacked?

Grieve said that, when he used the phrase “we could collapse the government” in an interview at the weekend, he was talking about what might happen if the final Brexit withdrawal agreement were rejected. He said the whole point of his “meaningful vote” amendment was to stop that happening.

If rejecting the withdrawal agreement were to cause a constitutional crisis, this makes it very hard for MPs to say no, however bad the withdrawal agreement is. Only a mechanism within the withdrawal bill that avoids such a crisis can make any vote 'meaningful' in the sense that saying no is a realistic option that won't plunge the country into turmoil. This is what Keir Starmer means by a 'meaningful vote' and Grieve seems to agree with him and is doing his best to get one. This is a good thing and a defeat for the wilder element of the Eurosceptic right as it will make it harder for May to push through a withdrawal agreement that doesn't meet the approval of the majority of the Commons.

And apparently this latest Grieve amendment is the only one that the government is resisting. Maybe it really is as simple as I said yesterday, May's utter terror of JRM and his ERG mafia means they (actually a pretty smallish minority) are effectively holding the rest of the Commons to ransom.

1. Is she cleverly playing both ends against the middle, simply kicking the ball down the road until eventually we have no choice but to accept an exit in name only and stay within all sorts of structures?2. Is she in thrall to her extremists and has decided - either ideologically or in a 'I made a face and the wind changed' way - that leaving on the hardest terms is the only way to go?3. Is she utterly incompetent and hopelessly lost?4. Is she genuinely just hanging on hoping something will happen somewhere somehow that will sort everything out?5. What other alternatives are there?

Grieve said that, when he used the phrase “we could collapse the government” in an interview at the weekend, he was talking about what might happen if the final Brexit withdrawal agreement were rejected. He said the whole point of his “meaningful vote” amendment was to stop that happening.

If rejecting the withdrawal agreement were to cause a constitutional crisis, this makes it very hard for MPs to say no, however bad the withdrawal agreement is. Only a mechanism within the withdrawal bill that avoids such a crisis can make any vote 'meaningful' in the sense that saying no is a realistic option that won't plunge the country into turmoil. This is what Keir Starmer means by a 'meaningful vote' and Grieve seems to agree with him and is doing his best to get one. This is a good thing and a defeat for the wilder element of the Eurosceptic right as it will make it harder for May to push through a withdrawal agreement that doesn't meet the approval of the majority of the Commons.

And apparently this latest Grieve amendment is the only one that the government is resisting. Maybe it really is as simple as I said yesterday, May's utter terror of JRM and his ERG mafia means they (actually a pretty smallish minority) are effectively holding the rest of the Commons to ransom.

Passing this could change that, so the stakes are high.

What's really worrying about all this is we're having an almighty ding dong over what would happen if May doesn't get an acceptable withdrawal agreement - because there is actually a very real likelihood of that happening.

1. Is she cleverly playing both ends against the middle, simply kicking the ball down the road until eventually we have no choice but to accept an exit in name only and stay within all sorts of structures?2. Is she in thrall to her extremists and has decided - either ideologically or in a 'I made a face and the wind changed' way - that leaving on the hardest terms is the only way to go?3. Is she utterly incompetent and hopelessly lost?4. Is she genuinely just hanging on hoping something will happen somewhere somehow that will sort everything out?5. What other alternatives are there?

I think it's a mixture of 2 and 3 with possibly a sprinkling of 4.

I think, like most leave supporters, she's just desperately trying to get us over the March 2019 line with the absolutely delusional idea that once we're "out" everything will get easier and all the "tricky bits" like the Irish Border and Eurotom will just sort themselves out somehow. She just needs to get her withdrawal bill with the Henry VIII powers through which allows her to take lots of executive decisions without recourse to Parliament and all this tiresome business of being held to account by factions of MPs with their own tiresome ideas of what's best will be safely behind her.

She hasn't called a snap election for a while,maybe she thinks the NHS shenanigans will win some extra seats (this may be covered by 3.) & possibly ditch the DUP (though not sure this would increase her options)

Has she ever stopped to consider that if Brexit goes ahead and the govt has all the executive powers they want, there'll be no hiding place when it goes tits-up?Are they so far gone they really think this coup is in the interests of anyone at all? Do they really mean to destroy democracy in this country?

Barnier making it clear this morning that leave means leave -some twitter quotes pinched from the daily pol in the graun.

Quote:

.@MichelBarnier “The #UK has decided to leave the EU...It will be a third country outside Schengen and outside the EU’s legal order. This is a fact. Facts have consequences.”

Quietly, Michel Barnier is shooting down virtually every UK demand on crime co-operation post-Brexit. He's just said that because of UK red line on ECJ he sees it as impossible that we can remain part of the European Arrest Warrant.

This language may not go down well. @MichelBarnier says will need "a common commitment to human rights & confidence that the other party will respect them." A little extraordinary.Let's be clear: we're talking about the UK here. Confirms EU demands UK commit to stay inside ECHR.

Quote:

Is there another region in the world where sovereign states built together a common area without internal border controls? Where citizens enjoy free movement and security and can avail of shared institutions to make sure their fundamental rights are protected? This cooperation is both, in fact, unique and unprecedented. And it is made possible by the trust between member states.

This trust does not fall from the sky. There is no magic wand. As I said in Lisbon, in front of the Federation for European Law [in this speech], this trust is founded on an ecosystem based on common rules and safeguards, shared decisions, joint supervision and implementation, and a common court of justice.

Certainly weird,"sorting out",a system that only exists in the imagination and repeated false description/representation alone.Is it sensible to treat independent living issues differently according to a turning of a day?

SC can serve varying purposes,some the same,some not not all age related.Is it that easily separable or should it be?Or do you set the overrall general purpose and suitably apply subject to particularities.It's far more wider than common conceptions of "care",as such,or should be.

Is there another region in the world where sovereign states built together a common area without internal border controls? Where citizens enjoy free movement and security and can avail of shared institutions to make sure their fundamental rights are protected? This cooperation is both, in fact, unique and unprecedented. And it is made possible by the trust between member states.

This trust does not fall from the sky. There is no magic wand. As I said in Lisbon, in front of the Federation for European Law [in this speech], this trust is founded on an ecosystem based on common rules and safeguards, shared decisions, joint supervision and implementation, and a common court of justice.

Who is online

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum